@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If sexual tension is detrimental to our ability to wage war on the front lines, why wouldn't a better solution be to eliminate the source of tension rather than make sure it's effects are spread evenly?
It's entirely possible and quite probable that with time, the tensions in the more open environment to which this repeal will lead will work themselves out, but what McCain was arguing is that the consequence of this tension on the battlefield is too great to rely on time and communication to sort out.
Our armed forces are already co-ed, so I think the old fashioned sexual tension between men and women already drowns out any effect from having homosexuals in uniform. If the Navy can run a co-ed ship with hundreds or thousands of sailors of both sexes in close proximity, I think the Army can have a patrol with a gay guy in it. As for McCain, his attempt to shift the goal posts just out of reach every time one of his arbitrary hurtles is breached shows that he would grasp any excuse to block homosexuals from serving. Today it is tension on the battlefield, tomorrow it would be something different. The reality is that this policy is wrong and has always been wrong. We are on a course to make it right and that is a very good thing.
I could be wrong here, but I don't believe they are co-ed on the battlefield.
In any case, I am not agreeing with the argument made by McCain and the Army and Marine chiefs of staff, but defending it from charges that it necessarily signals homophobic bigotry.
Your argument that McCain is hell bent on keeping gays from serving, would be a lot stronger if you had more than one example of an "arbitrary" hurdle he has set up.
Quote:Today it is tension on the battlefield, tomorrow it would be something different.
What was it yesterday and the day before?
The reality is that you believe that the policy is wrong and has always been wrong and there are enough legislators in Congress who agree with you.